I would approach this stuff carefully in that I seriously if the copyrights of many of these books are not being violated.

No doubt.

(see what I did there? ha ha!)

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

I've just read "Concept and Reality" ( thanks to ImageMarie ) but found some of his reasoning hard to follow. Here is one example:

Nanananda quotes this passage from the Udana on page 59:

"There, where earth, water , fir e, and wind no footing find, There are the stars not bright, nor is the sun resplendent,No moon shines there, ther e is no darkness seen.And then when he, the Arahant, has in his wisdom seen, From well and ill, from form and formless, is he freed,"

Nanananda's concluding comment on this passage ( page 60 ) is as follows:

"Thus the allusion here, with its touch of imagery (a feature as apt as it is recurrent in such inspired verses), is most probably to that transcendental consciousness of the living Arahant in which the concepts such as earth, water , fire, and air , stars, sun, moon, darkness (of ignorance), realms of form and formless realms, happiness and unhappiness, have lost their 'substantiality' in more than one sense."

One of the things I don't get here is the description of earth, water, fire and air as concepts - they seem to me like basic perceptions, a function of sanna. Earlier in the book he seems to say that papanca occurs subsequent to sanna but here he seems to be equating them?

Spiny Norman wrote:One of the things I don't get here is the description of earth, water, fire and air as concepts - they seem to me like basic perceptions, a function of sanna. Earlier in the book he seems to say that papanca occurs subsequent to sanna but here he seems to be equating them?

The point is about the loss of substantiality... that dhammas are no longer regarded as substantial by the arahant, either by way of perception or thought.

Papanca is what can happen when dhammas are granted substantiality. If they're not, then there's only nippapanca.

Spiny Norman wrote:One of the things I don't get here is the description of earth, water, fire and air as concepts - they seem to me like basic perceptions, a function of sanna. Earlier in the book he seems to say that papanca occurs subsequent to sanna but here he seems to be equating them?

The point is about the loss of substantiality... that dhammas are no longer regarded as substantial by the arahant, either by way of perception or thought.Papanca is what can happen when dhammas are granted substantiality. If they're not, then there's only nippapanca.

I'm not clear on how the substantiality of dhamma relates to papanca. I looked at MN1, which Nanananda also refers to, and at MN1.147 it says: "The Tathagata directly knows earth as earth". This suggests that while the Tathagata isn't involved in conceiving ( mannati ) or proliferation ( papanca ) there is still the process of perception ( sanna ).Is this consistent with what Nananda is saying?

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you...."A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you...."A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

I would suggest that what the arahant directly knows (in contrast to the run-of-the-mill's perceives) is what presents at the sense doors, uncontaminated by apperception.

Let not the trainee contaminate sensory perception with apperception, so that he/she may comprehend it.

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

I would suggest that what the arahant directly knows (in contrast to the run-of-the-mill's perceives) is what presents at the sense doors, uncontaminated by apperception.

By apperception do you mean conceiving? And are you suggesting that an Arahant doesn't perceive? As far as I can see MN1 is basically saying that an Arahant perceives ( sanna ) but doesn't conceive ( mannati ) - if an Arahant wasn't perceiving then he presumably wouldn't be able to distinguish earth from water and so on.

retrofuturist wrote:I would suggest that what the arahant directly knows (in contrast to the run-of-the-mill's perceives) is what presents at the sense doors, uncontaminated by apperception.

Let not the trainee contaminate sensory perception with apperception, so that he/she may comprehend it.

By "apperception" do you mean this?

In psychology, apperception is "the process by which new experience is assimilated to and transformed by the residuum of past experience of an individual to form a new whole."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apperception

Spiny Norman wrote:By apperception do you mean conceiving? And are you suggesting that an Arahant doesn't perceive? As far as I can see MN1 is basically saying that an Arahant perceives ( sanna ) but doesn't conceive ( mannati ) - if an Arahant wasn't perceiving then he presumably wouldn't be able to distinguish earth from water and so on.

Sanna, though it is sometimes rendered perception or recognition, is better translated as ‘apperception.’

Apperception is: “The process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experience.” Apperception is in a way a combination of perception and recognition. For example, we perceive a chair; but we already have an idea in our minds about what a chair is. So our apperception of the chair is to re-cognize what we have previously cognized as a chair.

retrofuturist wrote:"Re-recognizing what we have previously cognized" is not to "directly know" something.

But without previous cognition, what does "directly knowing" actually look like? An Arahant would previously have encountered and recognised "chairs" many times before, so how does he now experience a "chair"?

I'm not sure about your definition of sanna, because I think there's a distinction between perception and apperception. As I understand it, sanna is perception while apperception is what follows - conceiving and proliferating. So perception would be "chair" while apperception would be "nice chair", "my chair" etc.

Spiny Norman wrote:But without previous cognition, what does "directly knowing" actually look like? An Arahant would previously have encountered and recognised "chairs" many times before, so how does he now experience a "chair"?

Kirk answered this well.

Spiny Norman wrote:I'm not sure about your definition of sanna, because I think there's a distinction between perception and apperception. As I understand it, sanna is perception while apperception is what follows - conceiving and proliferating. So perception would be "chair" while apperception would be "nice chair", "my chair" etc.

You've clearly got a different take on some key terminology to me, so it makes sense for you to define this yourself, I think. For what it's worth, your saññā seems more similar to my nama-rupa (i.e. name and form, or as Sylvester called it elsewhere, naming and form).

Whatever you do, make sure your take on saññā allows the papañca-saññā-sankhā compound to make sense to you.

retrofuturist wrote:An arahant doesn't papañca-saññā-sankhā-ize.

Spiny Norman wrote:Could you briefly describe what that means in practice?

I don't believe there is a "brief" way to describe it. Nanananda wrote Concept And Reality about it. That link that I provided gives an account of it which seems consistent to Nanananda's, albeit from a slightly different tangent.

Nanananda's downloadable 'Nibbana Sermons' happen to go into nama-rupa in great detail, and given your take on what saññā means seems to more closely align to his take on nama-rupa, you may be interested in what he has to say there, as he goes into great detail about its operation and insubstantiability. Word search the terms 'dog', 'whirlpool' or 'vortex' if you're short on time.

Maybe it means that one should do ones best to understand the workings of the mind....a good place to start is to calm the mind....the mind is like a storm on the ocean...try to understand each wave....easier to understand waves in a calm sea....calm the sea (meditate) first and then watch the waves which arise......etc.chownah

retrofuturist wrote:You've clearly got a different take on some key terminology to me, so it makes sense for you to define this yourself, I think. For what it's worth, your saññā seems more similar to my nama-rupa (i.e. name and form, or as Sylvester called it elsewhere, naming and form).

But which vortex do you refer to? The point at paṭighasamphassa (bare/initial sensory contact, which afflicts even Arahants) or adhivacanasamphassa (designation contact, which Arahants continue to use as as part of naming) or the sequel paññapeti (which Arahants continue to do as part of the sphere of wisdom/paññāvacara so necessary to communicate the reality of suffering)?

I think modern scholarship has demonstrated that MN 1 cannot be given a traditional Theravada interpretation, eg footnote 6 of Ven T's translation. The sutta, although looking rather prajnaparamita-ish, is not a stab at ontology and epistemic limits in sectarian Buddhism, but rather a denial of Upanisadic cosmogony. The fact that Pajāpati (the Upanisadic "creator") makes it to the list should be clear, together with the All (Sabbaṃ/Sarvam - the Upanisadic ground of Existence, rather than the Buddha's alternative "All") point clearly to the pre-Buddhist search for beginnings/sources of identity and the "self".

I'm currently checking if the term "perceives" (sañjānāti) versus "directly knows" (abhijānāti) carries any pre-Buddhist significance, or whether this is a purely Buddhist issue, principally in the context of AN 4.49 namely perversion of perception (saññāvipallāsa). There, another stab at the Upanisads can be detected, where the perversion of perception is directed against the perception of nicca (permanent), self and sukha, all hallmarks of the Upanisad conception of Atman.